>>46838275Thank you, anon. Like
>>46838314 said it does seem pretty expensive for what it is. Maybe it would be worth it if I didn't already own most of the cards. I appreciate you thinking of me, however!
>>46838021My philosophy on damaged cards is one that I don't expect many people here to agree with. But I like the history of damaged cards. Damaged cards have a character that pristine cards lack. To me, a card that just sat in a binder for 20 years as a collector's item is boring. But a card that was well loved, traded back on forth on the playground, thrown in a trunk with the rest of some kid's beloved toys, actually used and produced feelings of childish wonder and joy for someone, that to me is far more interesting.
When I look through my childhood binder, full of plenty of damaged cards, it brings back so many memories of how different individual cards came to be in their present condition. I like to imagine that the original owners of the cards I buy had similarly warm memories of their cards.
